Officer Report

Application No.: 17/00006/B Applicant: Mrs Deborah Forster Proposal: Demolition of existing dwellings, garage and outbuildings and erection of four dwellings Site Address: Cliffside and End Cafe The Promenade Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7DD Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.10.2017 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions of approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Prior to the commencement of any development, including demolition, a scheme to address potential danger as a result of landslip, together with a method statement and programme of works, shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified engineer and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme and none of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the Department has confirmed in writing that the works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the development site is appropriate for safe development, during and after demolition and construction.

• C 3. Notwithstanding the drawings and information provided, prior to the commencement of development, details of eaves, windows, external doors and external facing materials shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Department and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To ensure that the development has a positive impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as required by Environment Policy 35.

• C 4. Prior to the commencement of any work including demolition, a construction method statement must be approved by the Department, setting out how construction vehicles will access the site and where they will park, demonstrating that other users of the promenade will not be adversely affected or have their safety compromised whilst demolition and building works are undertaken on the site. The development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.

Reason: To ensure the safety and amenity of those who live and work in and visit the area surrounding the site.

• C 5. The garage spaces so marked on the approved drawings must be fully available at all times for the parking of vehicles in association with the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved and none of the dwellings may be occupied until such times as the corresponding garage space(s) and the external parking spaces are available for use in accordance with the approved drawings.

Reason: To ensure that the required car parking standards are met in the interests of highway safety.

N 1. Manx Utilities have recommended that finished floor level is set at 6.2 metres above Douglas 02 Datum (i.e. 5.6m plus 600mm for residential properties), however the Department acknowledges that the final level will be influenced by the need to achieve vehicular access.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

• - Manx Utilities (Flood Risk Management)

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

• - The owner of Juicy ShedQuarters, Laxey Promenade who owns property close to the site itself and the only access to the site, and
• - The owner of 2, Glen View, Laxey, who is a tenant of one of the bathing huts in the building adjacent to the Juicy ShedQuarters premises and will be similarly affected. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

PREAMBLE

0.1 This application is almost identical to that which was presented to the Planning Committee at their previous meeting of 16th October 2017. The agent has explained that no further work can be undertaken in respect of the application at this stage and has requested that it be assessed on the basis of what is before the Committee today. The only changes between this

report and that previously placed before the Committee is in the form of the additional paragraph 5.4.2, which summarises an additional objection letter missed from summary previously, and an alternative recommendation in respect of the grant of Interested Person Status to that person.

THE SITE

1.1 The site is a parcel of land at the south western end of Laxey Promenade. The site presently accommodates a two storey building which accommodated a former cafe with living accommodation above and alongside. The building is of poor form with large, horizontally proportioned windows on both floors of the main part of the building and more traditional elements on the north eastern side. The south western end of the building has a shallow mono-pitched roof and the building is rendered although most of the paintwork is peeling off.

1.2 No part of the building is occupied or used and most of the windows are boarded up. - 1.3 A pedestrian footway runs on the seaward side of the site which is outwith the application site. A vehicular access continues from the promenade in single vehicle width form (approximately 4m wide) to the application site. Double yellow lines are painted on the landward side of this stretch of highway. - 1.4 To the rear of the building is a steep cliff at the top of which are properties which front onto Old Laxey Hill, particularly Cliff Mount which was the site of a significant land slip some years ago, the result of which was that material fell down behind the application buildings. There are no signs of recent movement and the slope is covered in ferns and gorse. - 1.5 The promenade is characterised by the seafront on the south eastern side, abutted by a low concrete wall with a wide pavement. The buildings on the other side are varied in age, appearance and style with the cafe and ice cream kiosk forming an important feature visually and functionally set in a wide grassed area. Further toward the application site are Glevum - an Art Deco style building, Seaview, Curlew Cottage and Wavecrest, all more traditional properties, a two storey garage block associated with Wavecrest beyond which is a public toilet block with changing cubicles alongside and a single storey chalet building used by Creative Juices, a local company preparing juiced drinks and providing dietary and health advice.

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the redevelopment of the site, demolishing the existing buildings and their replacement with two buildings, one accommodating one unit of accommodation with integral garaging and the second accommodating three residential units each with an integral garage. The scheme is the same as that which was approved under 07/01201/B which was not implemented (see Planning History) other than the internal parking spaces have been widened in response to Highway Services request for the spaces to be 3m wide.

2.2 The buildings are similar to each other - all three storey with a garage door at ground floor level and a pedestrian door either alongside or around the corner and the outer two and the single unit all finished in stonework. The upper floors are finished in roughcast render and have balconies on all with angle topped windows across the three units and the single unit having a projecting three storey bay on the elevation facing the sea with its balconies to the left with a three-part patio door on the ground floor. - 2.3 All roofing will be finished in slate. - 2.4 The windows will be aluminium framed units - either wide patio style doors/windows or more traditionally proportioned, smaller window which will be subdivided equally into two parts, one on top of the other and with both parts opening.

2.5 Car parking will be provided within the garaging - 6m by 6m internal area for unit 1 and 3m by 5.7m for units 2 and 4 and 3m by 9.6m for unit 3 with a further three spaces available within the site between units 1 and 2 and alongside unit 4.

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan of 2005 as Residential - part of the wider residential area which includes the residential properties, toilets and changing facilities referred to in paragraph 1.5 above. There is no specific reference to the site in the document.

3.2 Most of the site falls within the Conservation Area: a small part which is currently undeveloped but one which unit 1 is proposed to be built, is outwith the Area. - 3.3 As such, the following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant:

• 3.3.1 Strategic Aim: to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage".
• 3.3.2 Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".

• 3.3.3 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3".
• 3.3.4 Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.

• 3.3.5 Strategic Policy 4; "Proposals for development must: a) protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings (1), Conservation Areas (2), buildings and structures within National heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value or urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance".
• 3.3.6 Strategic Policy 5: New development including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases, the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies".
• 3.3.7 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them;
• c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;

• g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

• k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding and
• m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."

• 3.3.8 Housing Policy 4: New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.

• 3.3.9: Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

3.4 The site does not lie within any published flood risk zone although tidal flooding has previously been raised as a concern. Due to the topographical and geographical issues raised earlier, the following policies are also considered relevant:

• 3.4.1 Environment Policy 11: Environment Policy 11: Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not:

• i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes;
• ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and
• iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development".

• 3.4.2 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
• 3.4.3 Environment Policy 28 states: "Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken". PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 07/01201/B proposed the same development as is proposed in this current application and was approved at an appeal brought by Laxey Village Commissioners who were concerned at the style of development, the risk of landslip and the stability of the cliff behind, the risk of

• flooding from the sea and the impact of additional dwellings on existing congestion in the area, particularly in the summer. This approval was extended until 2013 on 13th January, 2012 with a note that any further extension of time was unlikely as the issues raised in the application should be properly and completely re-examined after that time.
• 4.2 The inspector hearing that appeal commented that there had been a previous application for an almost identical scheme which was refused only on the grounds of slope stability. He agreed with that previous inspector's comments that there is potential to enhance the Conservation Area and he did not consider that there would be unacceptable consequences from the proposed parking.
• 4.3 In terms of land stability, the inspector notes that the structural engineer's report did not prescribe the exact method of slope stabilisation but recommended a further topographical survey and a design produced from that. He states:

"From the report I would accept that measures are available to contain the problem of land-slip within acceptable limits. Furthermore, whilst at this stage, in the absence of the further study called for in the Arup report, there can be no absolute certainty, I consider the likelihood is that the necessary works could be undertaken on the appeal site without the need to secure the agreement of the adjoining landowners. The agreement of appropriate measures to address the question of slope stability should be regarded as a pre-requisite for the development to proceed. Those measures are not yet in place. However, in view of the conclusion that I have reached in the previous paragraph, rather than an outright rejection of the proposal because of the lack of information, the view may be taken that a condition could be imposed requiring the agreement of the necessary measures prior to the commencement of development and their satisfactory implementation prior to the occupation of the dwellings" (paragraphs 37 and 38).

4.4 He observes that the site is already protected by a sea wall and the majority of the living accommodation would be on the upper floors which would be an improvement on the current situation and that it would be inappropriate to refuse the application on the basis of potential tidal inundation. He also describes the site as presently detracting from the appearance and character of the area (his paragraph 2). - 4.5 The earlier application, 06/00791/B proposed the same development but without any information on slope stabilisation or tidal inundation. That was refused without prejudice to a further application which addressed these issues. - 4.6 Prior to this, applications were approved for the conversion of the existing cafe to two flats (02/00745/B), refused for the creation of 3 parking spaces (02/00987/B for reasons relating to the impact on pedestrian safety), approved for the demolition of a building at the rear and the creation of parking spaces other than those refused as part of the same application (02/00987/B), approved for the demolition of the existing buildings (04/01063/B) but refused for the erection of 3 dwellings in the same application (for reasons relating to design and with a note indicating an expectation of information in any further application on the structural stability of the land behind, following the landslip). Permission was also refused for the redevelopment of the site to provide six dwellings (04/02573/B for reasons relating to overdevelopment of the site, the design of the buildings and the unacceptable layout of the parking and access).

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Garff Commissioners indicate that they have no objection to the application (24.01.17 and

• 04.08.17). On 25.08.17 they reiterate that they have no objection but recommend a flood risk assessment as required by Manx Utilities and that condition 5 as attached to 07/1201/B is reiterated in any approval notice.

5.2 The owner of Creative Juices which operates from the building alongside the public toilets to the north east of the site, comments that whilst she has no objection to the principle of the development, she is concerned at the narrow access which is often heavily congested and have fears about how the development would be implemented. She seeks assurance that her business will not be disrupted during the process (26.01.17). She reiterates these concerns on 01.08.17.

5.3 Manx Utilities require the submission of a flood risk assessment to detail the precautionary measures being taken to limit damage within the properties in the event of flooding. They also make comments about the Sewerage Act 1999 which are not material planning considerations (25.01.17). Following the submission of additional information by the applicant, Manx Utilities confirm that they have no objection to the proposal and are satisfied with the floor resilient measures proposed (28.09.17). They recommend a finished floor level set at 6.2m above Douglas Datum). A note is recommended to highlight this, however, no condition is recommended to this effect as the ground floor use is limited to study/hallway and garaging and the actual finished floor level will therefore be influenced by the need to maintain vehicular access.

• 5.4.1 The owner of 2, Glen View, South Cape considers that the development will be out of scale and character with this part of Laxey and will dominate the Promenade and people's enjoyment of it. She considers that the previous inspector's acceptance of the scheme was based upon the buildings being set back, which not all of them will be and considers that the windows included in the opposing gable on the north west end will overlook the adjoining public amenity area. She is concerned that traffic generated by the proposed use will add excessively to the existing problems experienced at the end of the promenade and could threaten the promenade as a place to park for those using other facilities around it, such as the green area and the picnic area. Such an increase in traffic could threaten pedestrian safety, including that relating to children who frequent the area. No details are provided on the proposed retaining wall and whilst this may be a matter for the Building Regulations, as the site lies within a Conservation Area, the details should be known now. Details of prevention of further land slippage should also be provided now along with prevention measures from tidal inundation and photographs are provided to illustrate how the sea can encroach into the site (07.04.17).
• 5.4.2 The owner of 2, Glen View, South Cape wrote again in objection to the application on receipt of the amended plans. They express concern that while the 2007 application was approved with details of a retaining wall, that application never proceeded because the land needed for the wall was outwith the applicant's control, and moreover the wall was to be very high. She notes that the current application mentions a retaining wall but includes no details and nor does it include a structural engineer's report. While the detail would form part of the Building Control application, its appearance should form part of the planning application. 6mretaining walls have had to be used further north and are an eyesore. She also notes that the Commissioners are or should be aware of four major landslips in the recent past and nearby area (including one on the site itself), one of which was on a footpath that may be in the Commissioners' ownership as part of the Henry Bloom Noble Trust donation. She considers it irresponsible to approve residential development on such fragile land. No flood assessment has been supplied. This site has been inundated at high tides in winter, and she has supplied photos previously showing this. The site would be far more appropriate for a pumping / treatment station in connection with drainage and a proper surface water / storm damage scheme - such structures are not unsightly. The approval that separated the house from the café and converted the café into two dwellings was in 2002 and comprised modest conversions

• not the massive dwellings requiring parking for two cars each as proposed here. The road is latterly single track, and she considered it irresponsible to encourage additional residential traffic where the turning area to the north and the Promenade frequently blocked / full of cars. How long, she asks, will it be before someone is hit by a vehicle when trying to cross the promenade to reach the retailer or toilets? How long, she asks, will it be before the property

owners try to get the footpath in front of the dwelling shut altogether? Developers have a habit of shutting off traditional routes or trying to have them closed altogether once their schemes are approved (e.g. The Cairn in Laxey) and this should not be encouraged further. The scheme, which is within Laxey's Conservation Area, is a popular tourist and recreation area and is therefore damaging to public amenity in appearance and public health and safety.

5.5 Highway Services were initially concerned at the width and number of the parking spaces. The scheme was amended to increase the internal width of the garages to 3m. They finally advise on 28th September, 2017 that after having considered the amended plans and the earlier decisions on the site, they do not object, subject to a condition which reserves the garages for the parking of cars. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The application should be considered afresh although the previous decision on an identical proposal is a significant material consideration and there have been no changes in policy or circumstance since then which would justify a different decision. Updated advice from authorities such as Manx Utilities in respect of environmental conditions such as flooding are, however, essential and this has been sought in this case.

6.2 The scheme is essentially the same as that approved under 07/01201/B. Whilst concerns have been raised about the visual impact of the development, this is no different to what was considered acceptable in that earlier application and there have been no changes in the context or appearance of the site to justify a decision different to that on that basis.

6.3 The existing building adds nothing to the character and appearance of the area either in terms of its basic design or its condition. This is as noted by the inspector in the consideration of the earlier application. What is proposed will be more modern but the Promenade has a mixed character in terms of its buildings and this site is some distance from most of the other properties. It is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area and that both will be improved by the removal of the existing and the introduction of a new building which will hopefully be occupied and maintained.

6.4 There are not quite enough spaces to have two full spaces per dwelling (the one alongside unit 4 has limited size and accessibility, but three of the four will have two spaces available to them and this was previously considered acceptable. It is also acceptable to attach a condition to any approval granted to retain the garage spaces for the parking of vehicles associated with the buildings approved to ensure that there is sufficient space to accommodate the vehicles generated by the occupation of the site. It is likely, given the exposure of the site, that occupants would wish their vehicles to be garaged rather than left outside in the sea air.

6.5 The site is clearly near the sea and likely to be affected by it. The photographs provided by the owner of 2, Glen View demonstrate this. The existing situation is that there is a building which could be occupied where the living accommodation is provided at ground floor level which would be most affected by the prevailing water. As proposed, the living accommodation is lifted to first floor level, making any impact less significant and the applicant has advised that flood barriers could be fitted to the ground floor doors and tidal flaps to the new drains to prevent water backing up in the system.

6.6 This is not greenfield site where there is no possibility of occupation or use and it is considered that what is proposed is better in terms of its appearance, use and design in respect of flood risk. CONCLUSION - 7.1 The application is recommended for approval. PARTY STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

• * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 30.10.2017 Signed : S E Corlett. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report was required ( YES/NO See below PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 30.10.2017 Application No. : 17/00006/B Applicant : Mrs Deborah Forster Proposal : Demolition of existing dwellings, garage and outbuildings and erection of four dwellings Site Address : Cliffside and End Cafe The Promenade Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7DD Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee did not accept the Planning Officer's recommendation to approve the application at its meeting of 30th October, 2017 and refused the application.

Reason for Refusal

• R 1. Whilst planning approval was granted in 2008 for the same development, there is no information on the current condition of the slope to the rear, nor whether there have been any events which may have further de-stabilised the slope since the earlier decision. As such, there is nothing to demonstrate that the development as proposed could be implemented, nor any indication of how the required remediation and protection of the slope could be successfully undertaken and the environmental impact that could have.
• R 2. Notwithstanding the decision taken in respect of 07/01201/B for the same scheme, the Committee is of the view that the density and height of the proposed development is inappropriate in this prominent position where development is generally smaller and lower than that proposed. The density and height would result in inadequate levels of private amenity space for the occupants of the units and unsatisfactory outlook from some aspects of the units. Without the details of the remediation and protection of the slope at the rear, it is not fully known whether the outlook to the rear of the units, would be more significantly affected than as shown in the submitted drawings which already show a very close relationship between the slope and any retaining wall, and the rear windows.

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.